Peter Hart, The Great War, and Second Ypres

[alougheed]

I bought a copy of Peter Hart’s The Great War last week and I haven’t gone all the way through it, but later this week I will be sitting at a dock on a clear northern lake in Ontario and this is one of the books I will be taking with me. I am enjoying it but I have some things to say about what I have read so far. For years now I have been on a mission to challenge the mythology surrounding 2^nd Ypres. I have a long way to go so I need to take advantage of any pulpit I can preach from. I’m concerned that this assessment is going to come across as uncharitable so I am going to start with this: I have a problem with every book that has ever been written on 2^nd Ypres and this is not meant to single anyone out. We historians rely a great deal on what has been written before us and the vast majority of books have built up the heroism of Canadians at the expense of the French. A thorough examination of the French role in that battle has never been undertaken, with the result that the French have fared badly in the assessment of historians who have relied on English-language sources.

I’ll start with what I like about Hart’s portrayal of 2^nd Ypres. Hart has not belaboured the French retreat as so many have done, and Mordacq’s description is one of the more sympathetic available. The translation of Mordacq’s passage is excellent; I’ve seen some bad translations so this one deserves some credit. Hart also makes an important point about the casualties, drawing attention to the fact that most came during poorly coordinated counter-attacks.

There are some important factual errors though that I suspect arise from the traditional overuse of English-language sources. I find the assertion that the French did not send reinforcements to replace the 45^e and 87^e divisions misleading. We can mince words: true the divisions were not replaced outright, but they were reinforced and the majority of the battalions were still intact anyway. On the 45^e Division front, the gas had impacted 3 of the division’s 13 battalions (3 and a half if you include the Zouaves in immediate reserve) so the 45^e was still capable of putting up a fight. Likewise the 87^e still had most of its battalions available. Most of the artillery had been lost, but not all and more batteries were rushed in as quickly as possible. More French units arrived in the following days. Elements of the 153^e Division (an excellent division) began arriving on 23 April, followed by the 18^e and 152^e Divisions on 25 April. The French certainly did reinforce their sector after the attack.

A minor point; I disagree that Joyeux was a nickname for French North African soldiers. This mistake is part of the long-standing confusion over the composition of the 45^e Algerian Division. Joyeux was a nickname applied specifically to soldiers of the African Light Infantry, who were not African, but Frenchmen serving in North Africa because they had a criminal record. Confusing, I know, it is one of the misconceptions that I have been trying to correct. The Algerian moniker attached to the 45^th Division was a colloquialism; officially it was just the 45^e Infantry Division, a regular active division that was drawn from units garrisoning Algeria. Only 2 of the battalions in the 45^e were recruited from Algerians, the rest were comprised predominantly of Frenchmen. As to Mordacq, he is identified as a staff officer of the 45^e Division. He would be more accurately described as commander of the French 90^e Brigade, which I would not consider a divisional staff position, perhaps others would.

Hart also misidentifies the author of the excerpt quoted on pages 140 through 141 as Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Currie. The man quoted is actually Lieutenant Colonel John Alistair Currie of the 15^th Battalion, not the same man as Arthur Currie, who was commander of the Canadian 1^st Brigade at that time and would go on to command the Canadian Corps. Interestingly, J. A. Currie is properly identified in the index and the end notes, so there may have been a typo that wasn’t caught.

Hart has taken a refreshingly sympathetic approach to the French and I want to applaud him for that, but he has perpetuated what I would call a mythology of Canadian bravery at Ypres. John Alistair Currie was dismissed and returned to Canada after the battle, allegedly after being discovered drunk in his command post during the battle. An account of this can be found in Desmond Morton, When Your Number’s Up. J.A. Currie’s memoir and his glib statements about being exposed to the gas and its effects need to be taken advisedly. J. A. Currie was one of the earliest writers on 2^nd Ypres and he was one of the originators of the mythology that has been handed down to us. Put simply, the mythology is that the French panicked and ran while Canadians bravely held their ground. Is that what happened? Compare J. A. Currie’s description of the gas with that of Private Quinton on pages 142 to 143. Quinton’s description seems far more honest to me and it is corroborated by the documentary evidence of unit war diaries. The reaction of unprotected men to the chlorine gas was fairly universal, even Canadians retreated from it. J. A. Currie tried to gloss over the retreat of his men, but the fact is that C Company of his battalion, exposed to the gas on 24 April, fell back. There’s no shame in that, but for some reason there is an insistence on reporting that Canadians held their ground. The retreat of the 15^th Battalion on 24 April was understandable, more serious was the retreat of the 3^rd Brigade on the orders of Brigadier Turner. The retreat left a company of the East Kent, who had no such orders, completely isolated. The Canadian Division was also forced to give up St. Julien. To say that the Canadians held their ground is not strictly accurate and it does not give due credit to the British units that were also rushing to assist either. I think the use of J.A. Currie’s memoir was an unfortunate choice, but it is equally unfortunate that his views were quite common and an alternative viewpoint would be hard, if not impossible, to come by in a Canadian memoir.

There probably isn’t a single chapter in Hart’s book that isn’t steeped in controversy or debate of some sort. Hart is a supporter of Haig for example, as am I, and that alone will draw a strong reaction from some quarters. I don’t think 2^nd Ypres is on most people’s radar though so I hope what I have written here will be taken as an attempt to put my hand up to say “there is another side to this story!” Hart makes an important point when he says that it would likely be impossible for any one person to come to an understanding of the entire war. I agree and there is much that I expect to learn from Hart’s book about subjects that are not part of my own area of expertise. The approach I’m taking is this: the book is a good summary of the war in general and will make a good starting place for anything that I want to investigate further.

[dundeesown]

Why not call him Peter ? he is a member of this Forum.

Gary

[alougheed]

Sorry, its habit I suppose.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Why not call him Peter ? he is a member of this Forum.

But, sadly, no longer a participating member of the Forum.

[Bernard_Lewis]

I think Peter can read but not post. His preferred choice.

Bernard

[lostinspace]

Allan,

I have been reading about 2nd Ypres for several years now - as a matter of fact "The Red Watch" was one of the first books on the battle that I stumbled across. After reading Currie's account I compared it with the on-line war diaries for the 15th Battalion and noticed that he wasn't even mentioned after the battle began! Doing a little more research I came up with the same information as above and moved on to other sources.

In regards to your point about the French and the 4th, 27th and 28th British Divisions, I would agree that they seem to get very little credit for the assistance that they provided, not that the Canadian effort should be slighted but without the reinforcements poured into the French sector of the salient the Canadians could not have held. The other point I would make is the length of time under fire faced by the different contingents - most of the Canadian Division was removed by 1 May while the French and British remained to the end of the battle and therefore their casualties were much higher. Again, I'm not trying to take anything away from the Canadian effort but I do think that the credit for holding the line around Ypres should at the very least include the French and the British.

Regards,

Dave

[alougheed]

Hi Dave, very good points. I don't think being honest about what happened takes anything away from their courage and it is far more important to remember that they were human.

Cheers

Allan

[lostinspace]

I neglected to mention the other British (and Indian) units that had major roles in holding the line at Ypres - The Cavalry Corps (1st, 2nd and 3rd Cavalry Divisions), part of the 3rd (Lahore) Indian Infantry Division, the 50th (Northumbrian) Division and 13 Brigade of 5th Division.

Dave

[David Filsell]

I understand that Geo. Armstrong Custer has also taken vows of silence.

[phil andrade]

The only estimate I've seen for French casualties at 2nd Ypres is a round and suspiciously low figure of ten thousand. That does seem rather low, given the size of their contingents there, and their duration of engagement, doesn't it ? Especially given the traumatic ordeal of the initial German attack.

That figure is cited in a number of British histories that I've read, and I would be interested to discover its provenance.

Any info. ?

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

MAGNIFICENT BUT NOT WAR The Second Battle Of Ypres 1915, by John Dixon, is, in my view, a valuable addition to bookshelves.

It tabulates some analysis of British casualties in the battle which is informative and illuminating.

Dixon has this to say, though :

To add to the figures for the main comatants it has been estimated that the French suffered 10,000 casualties - there is not a more precise figure available which perhaps says much about the French method of recording casualties !

page 352

Anyone familiar with the compilations of the French Official History ( armees francaise- forgive spelling ) will know that there are some meticulous tabulations of casualties, and I would guess that, somewhere, there is a more precise figure available for Second Ypres.

Phil (PJA)

[lostinspace]

Phil,

You might be able to look through the "Journaux des Marches et Operations" (for the units engaged at 2nd Ypres) at this website - http://www.memoiredeshommes.sga.defense.gouv.fr/jmo/ead.html?id=SHDGR__GR_26_N_II , I can't read or speak French but between Google Translate and an English/French dictionary have managed to acquire some useful information on aspects of the 1914 battles, though I can't remember if casualty information is always listed.

Dave

[phil andrade]

Thank you, Dave.

It's a daunting document, but I will try and get stuck into it.

I know that in the First Battle of Ypres, fought six months earlier, the French posted more than forty thousand casualties in their official return. The British casualties in both First and Second Ypres were roughly the same : 55 to 60 thousand. It doesn't seem plausible that the French were meticulous in recording their casualties in the First battle, and were slap-dash in the Second. Granted that the French participation in the earlier battle was on a bigger scale and was more sustained, it still strikes me that the ten thousand estimate for 2nd Ypres is rather too low.

Phil (PJA)

[lostinspace]

Phil,

I have a translated copy of Yves Buffetaut's book (Ypres, April 22nd 1915, The First Gas Attack), this is what he has to say about French casualties - "With regards to the infantry, around 1,800 French soldiers were captured by the Germans, of which 200 were severly gassed. Among those who retreated into the French lines, around 600 men were gassed and incapable of fighting again. The number of killed is not known for certain but it is obviously very high: many thousands of deaths. It must be noted that neither General Mordacq, nor the official French history, gives a precise number of French casualties."

Looking at the "Short Bibliography" the JMO is not included. I would add that this very slim (80 pages) volume is not what you would call definitive.

Dave

[Guest]

This document might be of interest?

Click pdf download

Mike

[phil andrade]

The number of killed is not known for certain but it is obviously very high: many thousands of deaths.

Many thousands of deaths ? Attributable to a single gas attack ?

Is this a lost in translation affair ? Several thousand casualties, maybe : many hundreds of deaths, perhaps.

This happens a lot with authors ..all too often they confuse casualties with deaths. There is fine stuff in some of Yves Buffetauts work : I've got his book on the Spring 1917 Offensive on my shelves, and it commands respect.

He sounds way off mark on this one, though.

Several books that I have seen speak of the gas attack on 22 April 1915 causing fifteen thousand casualties, of whom five thousand died. Tremendous sleight of hand here.

Phil (PJA)

[lostinspace]

I suppose it could be an error in translation or he could possibly be talking about the gas casualties for all participants. He does seem to churn out a lot of material - I have a number of WWII related magazines (the Armes Militaria series - Bataille Pour Moscou, Tobrouk, Operation Barbarossa, Operation Goodwood etc.). Good stuff, with lots of photos for us language impaired types.

Dave

[Guest]

" Hart makes an important point when he says that it would likely be impossible for any one person to come to an understanding of the entire war. I agree and there is much that I expect to learn from Hart’s book about subjects that are not part of my own area of expertise. The approach I’m taking is this: the book is a good summary of the war in general and will make a good starting place for anything that I want to investigate "

Agree with all of that. It is a book I will keep returning to.

The Canadian Brigade diaries will be worth checking. 3rd Canadian Infantry Brigade

April 1915

Mike

[keithmroberts]

The book has just been listed on Amazon UK as one of its 10 best history books of 2013

Congratulations are due to the garage redesigner and all who have fallen in his company.

Well done Peter Muine's a pint.

Keith

(Those who are not up to date on his roof climbing antics are probably people with a life)